Three days before an election? And imposed by a Tea Party Sec State who has a history of pushing voter suppression efforts? And in the most crucial swing state whom many believe was given to the Republicans in 2004 through fraud? Yeah, I don't get the big deal either.

The form is a burden only if not used when employed during a period of three business calendar days preceding the second Tuesday in ... you get the idea.

I spend a fair amount of my week reviewing contracts for a very large company. This document was written with a lot of effort to ensure most people of reasonable intelligence and literacy skills would not be able to agree on how to fill it out.

I know reading is not exactly something Rapepublicans brag about, but come on, it's right there in TFA:Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, "the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

You guys can say whatever you want I suppose, but this is a change in the law mid-election. What about people who are illiterate? The burden of proof is on the SoS to show why this change is necessary.

xanadian:namatad: FFS, this is the kind of guy who could really push someone like Dexter over the edge.

Indeed. The problem is, what do you do if the system doesn't take care of someone like this? Do we really need to resort to a "lone wolf", all Dexter-style? Has it really come to this?:/Not that I'm advocating anything like that....

It is a bit worrisome for a democracy if you can not trust the elections. You would THINK that after 2000, we would have done something. Or after Ohio 2004, we would have at least looked closer at Ohio. And the recent court rulings have pretty much proven that Ohio is farking out of control.

And yet, the only thing preventing these guys from going full-rape, are judges and groups fighting to bring cases in front of judges. Why are we spending time, effort and money to fight to keep the right to vote?

The Republicans must be pretty Goddamn confident that they can fix every election ever, because with crap like this being pretty much their MO for the entire election, I can't be the only one who would only ever consider voting Republican once every current member of the party is dead and buried in salted earth.

I love it. Keep on keeping on, you Republican farks. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how much of a sham, joke and farce electoral politics are. Undermining faith in the system that protects you and keeps you in power is a good long-term plan.

Blue_Blazer:I know reading is not exactly something Rapepublicans brag about, but come on, it's right there in TFA:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, "the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

You guys can say whatever you want I suppose, but this is a change in the law mid-election. What about people who are illiterate? The burden of proof is on the SoS to show why this change is necessary.

AND yet, the average Rape-American is alright with this kind of shiat, because it wont effect them.

dookdookdook:Why are republicans so afraid of the will of the electorate?

Rape-Americans are still upset that the darkie and the women-folk got the vote. Now the GAYS are allowed to vote too?That has got to stop!!

If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

The Great EZE:If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

I would also be okay with this.

In one of the other threads up today, somebody said he'd like Obama to win the electoral vote handily, lose Ohio, and call for a recount in Ohio anyway. I'd be okay with that, too.

/also, I want Obama to win Florida//voted for him earlier this week///didn't vote straight ticket Democrat, specifically to reduce the chances of my ballot being "accidentally" lost

The absentee voter form I filled out here in Ohio asks for my DL number or last four of SSN, so that part I'm OK with, but Husted implementing this 3 days before voting ends when early voting has been going on for 34 days is wrong.

When I went to the Board of Elections (in Ohio, early voting is considered absentree), they didn't ask to actually see my ID. If I would have gone to my polling place on Election Day, I would have to show my ID.

It also appears he's violating state law by requiring the voter, not the election official, to record the form ID used.

I hope the court smacks this down and kicks Husted in the nuts for even trying.

skullkrusher:So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?

No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart:skullkrusher: So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?

No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

/Ohioan

isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

IANAL, but I think that once specific, individual victims who could be proven to have been denied the vote were found, the Ohio Sec'y of State could be brought up on federal charges of violating their civil rights. That's a few years in federal prison. It needs to happen.

skullkrusher:L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: skullkrusher: So, the issue is that the voter records which form of ID used rather than a poll worker in the event that the voter did not fill in the last 4 digits of their SSN or OH State Driver's License?

No, the issue is that the Ohio Secretary of State made a ruling that is contrary to Ohio law four days before the election. His ruling could have the effect of throwing out thousands of votes because the voters and election officials followed the law.

/Ohioan

isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

This form is NOT new to the directive. Every voter who cast a provisional ballot is required to sign this form. In previous years I had cast a ballot provisionally and signed a form very much like this one.

With this new rule, any ballot that has already been cast provisionally will be rejected. With a single ruling, one person has effectively disenfranchised thousands of people. Hopefully the courts will slap down this bit of idiocy as well.

DamnYankees:skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart:This form is NOT new to the directive. Every voter who cast a provisional ballot is required to sign this form. In previous years I had cast a ballot provisionally and signed a form very much like this one.

so what is the impact of the directive then? That if a ballot is not properly filled out then the ballot will not be counted?

The Great EZE:If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

It he wins, it's likely that we won't hear a whisper about the GOP's behavior at the state level, and they'll start preparing an even more insane round of voter disenfranchisement for the midterms and 2016.

skullkrusher:DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?

Think about what this is asking of voters - you need to know your social security number, and if not, you basically need ID to vote. It's an end-around on the ID requirement, because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers.

But just in general, that's not the point. This is a pointless roadblock who's only reasonable purpose is to disenfranchise voters. Whether you think its really easy to overcome really isn't the issue - would you be ok with a law that said you can only vote if you do 5 jumping jacks first, or sign an affivadit saying you are physically unable to do so? I mean, that would be EASY to comply with, but I hope you'd agree its farking insane and the only possible reason for it is to prevent people from voting who, for whatever reason, can't comply.

DamnYankees:Think about what this is asking of voters - you need to know your social security number, and if not, you basically need ID to vote. It's an end-around on the ID requirement, because lots of people simply dont know their SS numbers.

who the fark doesn't know their own SSN? What end around? The only difference is who is checking the box next to the form of ID provided. The ID still needs to be shown.

DamnYankees:But just in general, that's not the point. This is a pointless roadblock who's only reasonable purpose is to disenfranchise voters.

who will this disenfranchise except people who can't check a box? I am being 100% serious here. I am really trying to understand why this is a significant issue in any way.

DamnYankees:would you be ok with a law that said you can only vote if you do 5 jumping jacks first, or sign an affivadit saying you are physically unable to do so? I mean, that would be EASY to comply with, but I hope you'd agree its farking insane and the only possible reason for it is to prevent people from voting who, for whatever reason, can't comply.

so... you really think that this language telling the person to check the box next to the form of ID provided is in some way an attempt to prevent votes from being counted?